Holy crap, folks...this one's a doozy...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Eamar:

This biological parent patently does want her child. She hasn't stopped looking for her kid for five years. You talk about inflicting the pain of kidnap on a family for a second time- don't you think that's exactly what's going to happen to the biological family if she's not returned?

Matt King:

ok let's put it this way, your child was kidnapped and you are devestated, then a few years later it turns about she has been adopted and you are not allowed to have custody and that the adoptive parents get to keep her, that would destroy you

Personally, I would be just happy to know the kid's alive. But then, I've never had a child.

From my perspective exclusively, I would not expect to get her back if it's been years, especially if the adoptive parents have fed her, housed her, been her acting parents considerably longer than I have.

I would be vehement about at least being a part of the child's life in some way, but I wouldn't try to take her from a family that loves her.

Maze1125:

No, it's not.
They lost their child 5 years ago, they've already learnt coping mechanisms. Sure, things might well be better if the biological mother got her back, but if she doesn't, she's not going to feel anywhere near as bad as the adoptive parents, because she's already been through that bit, the adoptive parents haven't.

She's not losing a child that she's been raising for years, she's losing hope of getting that child back. The adoptive parents would lose both.

I agree any solution is going to cause someone a significant amount of pain, and there's nothing that can be done about that.

I'm also not meaning to imply that they in any way "deserve" to be hurt, but... the adoptive parents bought a child from traffickers. Not knowingly, granted, but that's the truth at the end of the day. Surely the adoption of a human being is something that should merit enough research to avoid this sort of thing?

Raven's Nest:
Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. The kid is only 7 years old, she probably couldn't properly articulate in a sentence what family is yet let alone choose for herself who to live with.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

When you're 7 years old you're not freaking brain dead.. Jeez I mean the child's probably grown to love her adoptive parents. Taking her away from the ones she loves and saying "shut up, you don't know what a family is because you're too young" is possibly the most arrogant thing I could ever hear anyone say..

Eamar:

Maze1125:

No, it's not.
They lost their child 5 years ago, they've already learnt coping mechanisms. Sure, things might well be better if the biological mother got her back, but if she doesn't, she's not going to feel anywhere near as bad as the adoptive parents, because she's already been through that bit, the adoptive parents haven't.

She's not losing a child that she's been raising for years, she's losing hope of getting that child back. The adoptive parents would lose both.

I agree any solution is going to cause someone a significant amount of pain, and there's nothing that can be done about that.

I'm also not meaning to imply that they in any way "deserve" to be hurt, but... the adoptive parents bought a child from traffickers. Not knowingly, granted, but that's the truth at the end of the day. Surely the adoption of a human being is something that should merit enough research to avoid this sort of thing?

So they made a mistake. Why does that mean they should lose their child.

I can tell you someone else who made a mistake, the biological mother. Because human traffickers don't prey on the children of perfectly vigilant parents.

People make mistakes, neither set of parents deserve to have a child taken from them, but the past can't be changed. Making the same mistake twice doesn't make up for the first one.

Maze1125:

So they made a mistake. Why does that mean they should lose their child.

I can tell you someone else who made a mistake, the biological mother. Because human traffickers don't prey on the children of perfectly vigilant parents.

People make mistakes, neither set of parents deserve to have a child taken from them, but the past can't be changed. Making the same mistake twice doesn't make up for the first one.

So kidnap is the fault of the parents? Fantastic.

I'd argue that turning your back for a few moments while opening the door (which is apparently what happened) is in no way comparable to rushing into adopting a child without checking the legitimacy of what you're doing. But this isn't a competition, and neither set of parents is evil or anything.

Maze1125:

So they made a mistake. Why does that mean they should lose their child.

Shouldn't that apply to the biological mother too?

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. No solution is going to be "right," and I for one am glad I don't have to make the actual call.

Eamar:
Shouldn't that apply to the biological mother too?

Yes, it should, but she's already lost her child. Giving the child back doesn't just suddenly fix the pain that's been suffered.

Give the child back and both sides suffer the loss of a child. Leave things as they are, and only one side does.

Angry Juju:

Raven's Nest:
Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. The kid is only 7 years old, she probably couldn't properly articulate in a sentence what family is yet let alone choose for herself who to live with.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

When you're 7 years old you're not freaking brain dead.. Jeez I mean the child's probably grown to love her adoptive parents. Taking her away from the ones she loves and saying "shut up, you don't know what a family is because you're too young" is possibly the most arrogant thing I could ever hear anyone say..

I didn't say she wouldn't know what a family is. I'm saying that her feelings about family life and biological maternity and how a move will affect her over the rest of her life are not going to be as complex now than they will be in the 10 or so years it'll take for her to grow up and realise all of a sudden she is at the center of a court case which potentially has globally important legal implications but more important than that she'll have to come to terms with being a person who was abducted from her true family home as a child and (i'm going to go with sold) into a life in another country whilst her real parents pleaded, begged, argued and campaigned for over a decade to have her returned. Whether she remembers the original event or not, this kind of shit is going to seriously mess with her head by the time she reaches an age where she will oh so much more crap to deal with...

It is probably better for a youngster to come to terms with something like this at her age than it is to suddenly be confronted with it at later life when she fully understands the implications of it later on. Yes it might be painful for a bit but seriously wake up. The world is a painful place and you can't shelter everyone from how shitty it can be. Just ask the girl's real parents for god's sake. This kid will grow up one day and either way be forced to come to terms with what has happened... Better that she doesn't properly understand it is what I say... For the same reason that you don't sit down explain to your 7 year old kid about death, crack addictions and sexual exploitation.

Has anybody even stopped to think the poor girl might end up being grateful for being returned to her real and loving parents?

The adopted parents... They brought her up and etc. so she belongs with them...

Raven's Nest:

Angry Juju:

Raven's Nest:
Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. The kid is only 7 years old, she probably couldn't properly articulate in a sentence what family is yet let alone choose for herself who to live with.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

When you're 7 years old you're not freaking brain dead.. Jeez I mean the child's probably grown to love her adoptive parents. Taking her away from the ones she loves and saying "shut up, you don't know what a family is because you're too young" is possibly the most arrogant thing I could ever hear anyone say..

I didn't say she wouldn't know what a family is. I'm saying that her feelings about family life and biological maternity and how a move will affect her over the rest of her life are not going to be as complex now than they will be in the 10 or so years it'll take for her to grow up and realise all of a sudden she is at the center of a court case which potentially has globally important legal implications but more important than that she'll have to come to terms with being a person who was abducted from her true family home as a child and (i'm going to go with sold) into a life in another country whilst her real parents pleaded, begged, argued and campaigned for over a decade to have her returned. Whether she remembers the original event or not, this kind of shit is going to seriously mess with her head by the time she reaches an age where she will oh so much more crap to deal with...

It is probably better for a youngster to come to terms with something like this at her age than it is to suddenly be confronted with it at later life when she fully understands the implications of it later on. Yes it might be painful for a bit but seriously wake up. The world is a painful place and you can't shelter everyone from how shitty it can be. Just ask the girl's real parents for god's sake. This kid will grow up one day and either way be forced to come to terms with what has happened... Better that she doesn't properly understand it is what I say... For the same reason that you don't sit down explain to your 7 year old kid about death, crack addictions and sexual exploitation.

Has anybody even stopped to think the poor girl might end up being grateful for being returned to her real and loving parents?

Possibly. Then again, she may refuse to acknowledge them as her real parents since she has no memory of them.

Dammit I'm tired of seeing "Of course the Biological mother should get the kid back, its hers!" Just because it's a child we're dealing with doesn't mean we shouldn't consider what they want. I'm willing to bet money that the kid wants to stay with the adoptive parents and that's the way it should be.

Reminds me of Elian Gonzalez back in the 90's. There really aren't any easy solutions to this. The girl isn't really old enough to fully understand the implications of deciding where she wants to live, and I would assume both families want her.

Although, it might be a good idea to try to rescue her from Missouri before she adopts that state's social political views.

samaugsch:

Possibly. Then again, she may refuse to acknowledge them as her real parents since she has no memory of them.

She might refuse to acknowledge it but then someone of that age might refuse to acknowledge that a dentist isn't some one who only exists to cause you pain...

Young children are pretty impressionable, if it was handled correctly, i cant see the child being returned to her parents as a completely insurmountable problem.

I think in a case like this, trying to wish a way a problem as monumentally big as this is not the best course of action. The child will forever be growing up in a fraudulent life, one that was never meant to be and has been a source of unimaginable pain for her true parents.

If I was to put myself in her shoes and reflect on it at my ripe age of 24, i think I would have chosen to return to my real parents if i had the choice. But this child has no choice. She might not be given the opportunity to change anything about her life when it would have meant the most. She won't be allowed to regret anything if she is not at least given the chance to meet and accept her biological mother and father.

Kids are surprising I find. They can be stronger than we think. I think everyone deserves the benefits the doubt in this case.

AntiChri5:

rhizhim:

AntiChri5:

A child does not belong to anybody. A child is a person, and people are not property.

yes you are right.

we should give her 100$, a bag with clothes and a bus ticket to Minneapolis.
there she can live as a free person and perhaps she may start a successful career as a associate producer.


and she may live happily ever after. loop di friggin doo.

this is ..... why do you even tell me this?
do you think i would not know this?

that doesnt change the fact that she belongs or better said belongswith her real parents/mother. (satisfied?)

Of course i thought you did not know it, since it is exactly what you said. You cannot blame someone for taking you at your word.

Yes, she belongs with her family. However, i believe the issue being debated here is which is her family. The woman who gave birth to her, or the people who raised her?

and i said she belongs with her biological mother.

and i also said that one outcome would be that both families agree on having contact with each other and decide to raise the girl in america but once a year she visits her real parents for a month or two. but that is not really a good solution.

Sixcess:
If this was reversed - a US born child kidnapped and now being raised in Guatemala the US State Department would be sending in the FBI, or the Marines.

That this is even being debated is double standards and nothing else.

Because the United States is 4th on the human development index and Guatemala is 131st.

Anybody trying to say that she should go to the biological mother because of familial ties or emotions should not be allowed to reproduce.

SillyBear:

Ickorus:

It does really, whilst it is getting better Guatemala still isn't a the most stable of countries and crime is still extremely high; not the best country to raise a child, she'd have a much better life in America.

What sort of life you have isn't solely dependant on what sort of country you live in. Nor is there a direct link between happiness and what country you live in.

Just because the parents who adopted her live in the USA doesn't necessarily mean she will have a better life there than in Guatemala. It is also a horrible argument to use because it is essentially saying "These people can have her because they are American. Sorry, you don't get to have your child anymore".

Any parent worth their salt will give their child every possible advantage to succeed and be happy in life. The girl is a United States citizen. That very fact means she is guaranteed to a higher standard of living than someone in Guatemala. Thank you for trying to go against statistics, have a nice day.

I have no right to say anything about this. You who are reading this has no right to say anything about this. It's not up to us, we don't understand what any of them are going through. And frankly, I'm disgusted that any of you think that you do have a right to decide. And I'm glad that none of us do. I will admit, I have an opinion on the matter, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I'm right.

Both the biological mother, and the foster parents are/will be hurt from this. The child is, and will be, hurt from this. Stop judging these kinds of situations on "Good vs Evil" and "Which one makes me more sad." logic. It's not right, it's disgusting.

The girl's 7 years old. Give her back to the original parents, so what if the adopted family did legitimate paperwork. It wasn't a legitimately adoptable child. If the birth parents can happily part with her, then that's fine too.

I suspect the way the law will deal with this is the only way I could.

The adoptive parents bought a kidnapped child. Now, they didn't know they were buying a kidnapped child, but I would imagine under the circumstances they didn't check terribly hard. They wanted a child, someone offered them a child, they took it. They are responsible for their actions.

The emotions they might feel are secondary to what they actually did. They gave money to human traffickers, they accepted false papers, they didn't ask questions because it wasn't in their interest to ask questions.

The crutch is that if they're allowed to keep the child, then the implication is that they were right not to ask questions, that they had no responsibility in the transaction because they were ignorant of the conditions under which it was taking place. I don't think that's something which can be allowed to stand.

I'm not saying it's the best option for the child, I'm sure it's not. But emotion alone doesn't determine what is right or equitable. We cannot simply condemn the people who commit atrocities to supply illegal goods while simultaneously absolving the people who create the demand for those goods in the first place. This family didn't kidnap the child, but they made it profitable to do so, and they gave people money to keep doing it. Regardless of what happens to their own child, other children and families will suffer because of their negligence.

Maybe rather than considering this case in isolation, we should also remember that this kind of thing is still going on. The law is clearer on it now, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

waj9876:
I have no right to say anything about this. You who are reading this has no right to say anything about this. It's not up to us, we don't understand what any of them are going through. And frankly, I'm disgusted that any of you think that you do have a right to decide. And I'm glad that none of us do. I will admit, I have an opinion on the matter, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I'm right.

Both the biological mother, and the foster parents are/will be hurt from this. The child is, and will be, hurt from this. Stop judging these kinds of situations on "Good vs Evil" and "Which one makes me more sad." logic. It's not right, it's disgusting.

And who are you to say we don't have the right to talk about this? You don't have the right to tell us what to do. We can talk about this all we goddamn want. We're not deciding shit. We're talking about it. If you don't like that, you have the right to leave.

evilthecat:

The adoptive parents bought a kidnapped child. Now, they didn't know they were buying a kidnapped child, but I would imagine under the circumstances they didn't check terribly hard. They wanted a child, someone offered them a child, they took it. They are responsible for their actions.

What in the fuck. Bought? Buy? The girl's not a fucking cat. Jesus Christ.

You don't know what the fucking circumstances are. Don't criminalize people who adopted a child. They did good for the world. Do you realize what you just said? Holy shit.

There is a Law & Order epsido just like that. The kid went to the biological parent but the judge asked him to let the kid be in touch with his adoptive parents.

The adoption was legal but also void once they found out the kid has a parent.

With the adoptive parents.

How did the mother find out where her daugther was in the first place? I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to have her daugther back. But they should look at the living conditions of the mother. If she lives all 3rd country then no, the girl has a beter chance in the US than there.

With her natural mother.

It will poison relations if the United States is seem to be complicit in the abduction of Guatemalan children. It violates the entire notion of citizenship if one can be snatched up as an infant and moved to another country and US harping about illegal immigration if the trafficking of children is casually accepted.

I am very much sorry for the couple who adopted, I imagine they did so with the best of intentions, but unfortunately it was never a valid adoption. It sucks to be them. If the birth mother is willing to then allow of an actual legitimate adoption process to occur then great, fantastic. But if she isn't, I'm sorry but I can't accept that the child should stay with the couple who facilitated, albeit unknowingly, a horrendous activity.

This is the definition of Gray Area. I see both sides having a legit arguement to having the child. BUT the child is the important one in this and I would have to say leave her with the adopted parents. It's a sad ending no matter who wins.

Freechoice:

That this is even being debated is double standards and nothing else.

Because the United States is 4th on the human development index and Guatemala is 131st.

Anybody trying to say that she should go to the biological mother because of familial ties or emotions should not be allowed to reproduce.

That is a complete over-simiplification of everything; firstly, who uses the HDI in it's pure form? The inequality-adjusted version is the HDI most used, as it is based on actual (nation's average), in stead of potential quality of life. USA is actually 23rd on that list (I can just taste the equality there!), compared to Guatemala's 92nd, much lower, but the family (i.e. biological mother AND father AND sibling) is at least upper-middle class(they live in the suburbs).

Secondly, the child is not a US citizen as all the legal documents are null and void due to the kipnapping and falsified documents.

Thirdly, your insult shows petulance, and an inability or unwillingness (much worse) to understand other people's viewpoints and arguments - It's also confusing, should people who believe/know that carrying and birthing a child (not to mention the 2 years of raising the child)leads to a deep connection, not be allowed to raise children? Surely they are the one's less likely to abandon or betray them than those who have no such connection after child birth.

Mictarmite:

That is a complete over-simiplification of everything; firstly, who uses the HDI in it's pure form? The inequality-adjusted version is the HDI most used, as it is based on actual (nation's average), in stead of potential quality of life. USA is actually 23rd on that list (I can just taste the equality there!), compared to Guatemala's 92nd, much lower, but the family (i.e. biological mother AND father AND sibling) is at least upper-middle class(they live in the suburbs).

Secondly, the child is not a US citizen as all the legal documents are null and void due to the kipnapping and falsified documents.

Thirdly, your insult shows petulance, and an inability or unwillingness (much worse) to understand other people's viewpoints and arguments - It's also confusing, should people who believe/know that carrying and birthing a child (not to mention the 2 years of raising the child)leads to a deep connection, not be allowed to raise children? Surely they are the one's less likely to abandon or betray them than those who have no such connection after child birth.

Fine, I'll grant the first point (although that also favors what I say because Guatemala goes down in IAHDI as well, but whatever), complain about the second point on how the child will still probably be considered American by the courts if this doesn't actually get a trial and as for the third, the insult isn't petulance, it's a pseudo ad-hominem to berate the people who are trying to look at the topic from a moral standpoint as opposed to an economic/cultural standpoint and not looking at the actual goddamn numbers instead of just assuming that they're right.

Ok, so maybe it is petulance, but it's justifiable.

Look at all the kiddies that argue (badly) how the child should be returned to the mother just because she's the biological mother. What is the tangible benefit (for the child, the only party in the matter that isn't a mirror of the other in gain and loss and thus moot points) of returning a child that has been socially formed in the United States and bonded with the adopted parents for longer than the biological mother? There is none. The reproduction thing was a nice way of saying piss off.

And no, your final arguments don't hold weight here because the parents have already proven that they are willing to care for the child by virtue of adopting her and caring for her.

Risingblade:

Maze1125:

Risingblade:

So her real parents have no right to have their daughter back? Someone can just kidnap your child give her to to someone else and you can't get them back? Love your logic there mate.

And what about the adoptive parents?
If you give her back to her biological parents then you're taking away the adoptive parents child.

Yeah, having your child taken away really really sucks, especially if there's no way to ever get them back.
So why are you advocating precisely that?

It's a fucked up situation either way I'm just saying that since the adoption was illegal and she was kidnapped from them first she should go back to them. It's not like they just abandoned her and they obviously love her hence the 5 years of searching. I'm worried about the precedent this case might set. That suddenly it will be ok to keep kidnapped children if they've been with you long enough.

This is all I need to say on this matter:

If it sets a precedent, it would only apply to the parent the child would consider their parent. We are all assuming that the kid doesn't remember anything from age 2, and that her adoptive parents are not bad parents. In this case, you would be forcing a kid to stay with a complete stranger just because she popped out of her vagina at some point. That is hardly right to do that to a developing kid.

Don't think I have no sympathy for the bio-mom. Shit fucking sucks for her. The practical thing to do is just simply introduce herself into the kid's life, and maybe in the future, the kid can like her enough to want to live with her. But if she really loves the kid, she will not take her away from a stable household just so she can have the fruit of her loins near her again. That 2-year-old she lost is as good as dead to her, and forcing that kind of trauma into the child's life is just being a bad parent (to the same extreme as this video) before she even gets a chance to treat her right.

Dastardly:

Ultratwinkie:
In 2003, but it wasn't put into effect until April 1st, 2008.

So, which is it? Do we go by the letter of the law, or can we play around in the grey area? If it "went into effect in 2008," there's your date. If I sign a lease on an apartment, effective on the first of next month, I can't start cramming my stuff in there today and demanding things like I'm a tenant.

However, here is the kicker, the US government put out a warning to stay far away from any and all guatemalan adoptions. Any prospective adoptive family would know this, more so an actual reputable organization. The fact the family didn't know is a shocker. It goes to show they rushed into an adoption without researching it and blindly threw away their money. The adoptive parents are looking incredibly shady right now, especially since they hired a PR firm.

But here's where you lose me. You want too badly for this to be "hero vs. villain." All of a sudden the family is "shady?" Wishful thinking. There are tons of families that go for foreign adoptions because of the red tape and expense involved in US adoptions, and the likelihood of American parents being able to find people and complicate things later on. These people missed a warning label, and you want to crucify them.

And hiring a PR firm isn't some sign of guilt. It's a sign that these people are unfamiliar with the spotlight, and don't want to screw this up. So, likely under a lawyer's advice, they hired someone who specializes in that. But it's like you're saying anyone who hires a lawyer is guilty...

I didn't say hiring lawyers is a sign of guilt.

PR firms are not cheap. From what I seen, the minimum rate is 10K. Now ask yourself, if they had this kind of cash sitting about, why are they concerned about red tape? Unless some organization was in the mix? It doesn't make any sense.

If they wanted a child so badly, why did they not research where they adopted the kid? Any respectable organization would know Guatemalan children were off limits at the time. Any adult who put thought into this would have researched the adoption climate.

Any normal family would simply present their evidence, and hope for the best.

Secondly, from what I read of her being adopted in December 2008, she still falls under the treaty. Especially since the treaty implies its retroactive. The treaty itself is between multiple countries, and they all agreed this is what they would do in this situation. The treaty is still valid, but the US refuses to hold up their end of the treaty.

Raven's Nest:
Guys its not that difficult, the girl was freaking kidnapped, and at two years old its certainly something the mother will remember. It's not like the mum put her up for adoption and now all of a sudden wants her child back. The kid absolutely has to go back to her true biological mother without question.

Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. The kid is only 7 years old, she probably couldn't properly articulate in a sentence what family is yet let alone choose for herself who to live with.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

I'm frankly more concerned about how she came to be put up for adoption after being kidnapped and that what ever legal system that was taking care of the adoption clearly missed something pretty fucking important...

I don't think it is that simple, and I think you're not giving the seven year old enough credit. Seven is about grade two, are you telling me that when you were seven you didn't know what a family was and that if someone had taken you away from yours that wouldn't have fucked you up? As far as that kid knows that's their family and they're old enough to be really traumatised by being separated from it. The goal here should be to find what's best for the child not what makes the parents biological or adoptive feel better. It's a horrible thing to have happened to the biological mother but it's unfair to the child to take them from their home.

Raven's Nest:

dumbseizure:

I am sorry, but this just blows my mind.

For starters, at home is where a child should be and with her parents? What is to say that she does not consider her where she lives and her foster parents her home and family? A large amount of people who have foster parents from a young age consider them their "real family and home".

Parents produce offspring so they can raise them themselves. That is what a family is. A child belongs with her parents because that is what a family is.

This child was kidnapped, abducted, taken, stolen pick a word that makes it easier for you to understand. This child does not, and will not ever belong to that adopted family. The adoption was a fraud. Profit was likely involved. The foster parents, as much as I can sympathise with them, do not belong with this child.

Please can you recognise the difference between a legal adoption and an ongoing abduction which is exactly what this case is.

The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...

Until all the parties agree that it is in the best interest of the child that she remain with the adoptive parents and all the legal paperwork is settled, I will refuse to acknowledge that the child is where she should be.

This also blows my mind.

Will PROBABLY come to terms with it EVENTUALLY? You are not building a strong case for this. What you are pretty much saying is that it may happen, or it may not, and yet you are for this based on chance.

Also, it wouldn't be worse at 14, because at the age she would have an understanding of what is going on. How do you explain to a 7 year old that the family she currently lives with isn't her real one, and that she has to move away to be with a family she may not even remember?

You are speaking like someone who has clearly never met an adopted or fostered child who was aware of their own situation. You'll just have to trust me when I say that I have, and a 14 year old whirlwind of hormones and emotions reacts significantly worse to a situation such as being ripped from a family unit and being told they have a new family. I just can't stress this point enough.

I'm not an expert on child psychology but I really feel it would be better for a child to go through this kind of thing now when they have barely begun school and making friends than be forced to make a decision at 18 years old when they are legally an adult and will face some extremely complicated decisions.

This child will discover all of this in a few years time. Trying to pretend it never happened will not make the problem go away. And after all this time she will still be registered as an abducted person whether she feels this way or not. As others have mentioned, those kind of legal issues cannot be magic'd away no matter how much you sit there and say "But she'll get upset"...

I personally am not interested in how individuals deal with emotions or how much we "think" individuals deal with them. I am interested in the long term benefit of the child and of the political and legal shit-storm that is brewing around it.

This explains a lot. You haven't done child psychology.

Why does it explain a lot? Because I have done psychology in relation to family, I have done the whole nature vs nurture argument. Hell, I spent an entire year writing about how the way you are brought up affects your adult life.

The part that I THOROUGHLY like though, is when you say "The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...", which is confusing in the first place unless you know the child first hand. But then you also go on to state that you are not an expert in child psychology. I think if you do not know the child first hand, it does not make you capable of commenting on the child'd mental state or what she thinks.

And, I am not saying that a 14 year old would not be affected..... I am not saying that at all.

What I AM saying though, is that it would affect the 7 year old for a longer amount of time.
Why? Because they would not have understood what was going on, they wouldn't understand why, they wouldn't understand who they are being given too.

The only reason it would not affect a 14 year old as badly is because at that point they have the capability of completely understanding what is going on. That doesn't mean they will be like "alright, fuck it, let's go" like you seem to think I meant. They will react, badly.

However, it will not affect them as further until their adult life as it would with a 7 year old child.

No matter how much I say "she will be upset"? What is wrong with you?

Mental stress and issues are not just someone "being upset". Mental stress can affect someone to the point of where they do not even leave a room. They completely stop any daily routine what so over. Hell, they can stop eating.

And I am sorry, I really am. You can not care how people deal with emotions all you like. You can sit in the corner doing everything with a cold expression like your having a colonoscopy for all I care. But having the supposed "best long term" interests for the child involves mental and emotional factors. I think based on the fact that you do not care about how people deal with emotions, and that a factor of this solution is based on the emotional and mental level, you are nowhere near qualified to provide an answer to this situation.

Lurklen:

Raven's Nest:
Guys its not that difficult, the girl was freaking kidnapped, and at two years old its certainly something the mother will remember. It's not like the mum put her up for adoption and now all of a sudden wants her child back. The kid absolutely has to go back to her true biological mother without question.

Its really not hard to put yourself in everyone's shoes here. Obviously the mum will want her daughter back. The kid is only 7 years old, she probably couldn't properly articulate in a sentence what family is yet let alone choose for herself who to live with.. Yeah it might sting for the adoptive parents but their feelings should come second to the mother and daughter.

I'm frankly more concerned about how she came to be put up for adoption after being kidnapped and that what ever legal system that was taking care of the adoption clearly missed something pretty fucking important...

I don't think it is that simple, and I think you're not giving the seven year old enough credit. Seven is about grade two, are you telling me that when you were seven you didn't know what a family was and that if someone had taken you away from yours that wouldn't have fucked you up? As far as that kid knows that's their family and they're old enough to be really traumatised by being separated from it. The goal here should be to find what's best for the child not what makes the parents biological or adoptive feel better. It's a horrible thing to have happened to the biological mother but it's unfair to the child to take them from their home.

Thank you, Pretty much this.

dumbseizure:

Raven's Nest:

dumbseizure:

I am sorry, but this just blows my mind.

For starters, at home is where a child should be and with her parents? What is to say that she does not consider her where she lives and her foster parents her home and family? A large amount of people who have foster parents from a young age consider them their "real family and home".

Parents produce offspring so they can raise them themselves. That is what a family is. A child belongs with her parents because that is what a family is.

This child was kidnapped, abducted, taken, stolen pick a word that makes it easier for you to understand. This child does not, and will not ever belong to that adopted family. The adoption was a fraud. Profit was likely involved. The foster parents, as much as I can sympathise with them, do not belong with this child.

Please can you recognise the difference between a legal adoption and an ongoing abduction which is exactly what this case is.

The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...

Until all the parties agree that it is in the best interest of the child that she remain with the adoptive parents and all the legal paperwork is settled, I will refuse to acknowledge that the child is where she should be.

This also blows my mind.

Will PROBABLY come to terms with it EVENTUALLY? You are not building a strong case for this. What you are pretty much saying is that it may happen, or it may not, and yet you are for this based on chance.

Also, it wouldn't be worse at 14, because at the age she would have an understanding of what is going on. How do you explain to a 7 year old that the family she currently lives with isn't her real one, and that she has to move away to be with a family she may not even remember?

You are speaking like someone who has clearly never met an adopted or fostered child who was aware of their own situation. You'll just have to trust me when I say that I have, and a 14 year old whirlwind of hormones and emotions reacts significantly worse to a situation such as being ripped from a family unit and being told they have a new family. I just can't stress this point enough.

I'm not an expert on child psychology but I really feel it would be better for a child to go through this kind of thing now when they have barely begun school and making friends than be forced to make a decision at 18 years old when they are legally an adult and will face some extremely complicated decisions.

This child will discover all of this in a few years time. Trying to pretend it never happened will not make the problem go away. And after all this time she will still be registered as an abducted person whether she feels this way or not. As others have mentioned, those kind of legal issues cannot be magic'd away no matter how much you sit there and say "But she'll get upset"...

I personally am not interested in how individuals deal with emotions or how much we "think" individuals deal with them. I am interested in the long term benefit of the child and of the political and legal shit-storm that is brewing around it.

This explains a lot. You haven't done child psychology.

Why does it explain a lot? Because I have done psychology in relation to family, I have done the whole nature vs nurture argument. Hell, I spent an entire year writing about how the way you are brought up affects your adult life.

The part that I THOROUGHLY like though, is when you say "The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...", which is confusing in the first place unless you know the child first hand. But then you also go on to state that you are not an expert in child psychology. I think if you do not know the child first hand, it does not make you capable of commenting on the child'd mental state or what she thinks.

And, I am not saying that a 14 year old would not be affected..... I am not saying that at all.

What I AM saying though, is that it would affect the 7 year old for a longer amount of time.
Why? Because they would not have understood what was going on, they wouldn't understand why, they wouldn't understand who they are being given too.

The only reason it would not affect a 14 year old as badly is because at that point they have the capability of completely understanding what is going on. That doesn't mean they will be like "alright, fuck it, let's go" like you seem to think I meant. They will react, badly.

However, it will not affect them as further until their adult life as it would with a 7 year old child.

No matter how much I say "she will be upset"? What is wrong with you?

Mental stress and issues are not just someone "being upset". Mental stress can affect someone to the point of where they do not even leave a room. They completely stop any daily routine what so over. Hell, they can stop eating.

And I am sorry, I really am. You can not care how people deal with emotions all you like. You can sit in the corner doing everything with a cold expression like your having a colonoscopy for all I care. But having the supposed "best long term" interests for the child involves mental and emotional factors. I think based on the fact that you do not care about how people deal with emotions, and that a factor of this solution is based on the emotional and mental level, you are nowhere near qualified to provide an answer to this situation.

Or she can stay in the US without citizenship or papers then be deported when a police officer finds out she has none.

You know, because being deported with no idea where your other family is sooo much better. /sarcasm

emotion and mental health is all well and good, but that doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law. If she stays there, she WILL have issues later in life. Considering she needs to magically find a way to get every document, she would wish she was killed when that woman abducted her.

Legality and paperwork is tantamount to a life. She may be happy having a "family" but she wont be able to go to elementary school (needs birth certificate) because her paperwork were forgeries. Since Guatemala nullified her adoption, they have no legal standing to get a birth certificate. Not to mention its very likely her Birth Certificate doesn't even match her name or parents, it will be useless.

Basically, she wont be employable in ANY job, not even Mcdonalds.

Sending her back to Guatemala is better than having her without an education, and on the street.

Ultratwinkie:

dumbseizure:

Raven's Nest:

Parents produce offspring so they can raise them themselves. That is what a family is. A child belongs with her parents because that is what a family is.

This child was kidnapped, abducted, taken, stolen pick a word that makes it easier for you to understand. This child does not, and will not ever belong to that adopted family. The adoption was a fraud. Profit was likely involved. The foster parents, as much as I can sympathise with them, do not belong with this child.

Please can you recognise the difference between a legal adoption and an ongoing abduction which is exactly what this case is.

The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...

Until all the parties agree that it is in the best interest of the child that she remain with the adoptive parents and all the legal paperwork is settled, I will refuse to acknowledge that the child is where she should be.

You are speaking like someone who has clearly never met an adopted or fostered child who was aware of their own situation. You'll just have to trust me when I say that I have, and a 14 year old whirlwind of hormones and emotions reacts significantly worse to a situation such as being ripped from a family unit and being told they have a new family. I just can't stress this point enough.

I'm not an expert on child psychology but I really feel it would be better for a child to go through this kind of thing now when they have barely begun school and making friends than be forced to make a decision at 18 years old when they are legally an adult and will face some extremely complicated decisions.

This child will discover all of this in a few years time. Trying to pretend it never happened will not make the problem go away. And after all this time she will still be registered as an abducted person whether she feels this way or not. As others have mentioned, those kind of legal issues cannot be magic'd away no matter how much you sit there and say "But she'll get upset"...

I personally am not interested in how individuals deal with emotions or how much we "think" individuals deal with them. I am interested in the long term benefit of the child and of the political and legal shit-storm that is brewing around it.

This explains a lot. You haven't done child psychology.

Why does it explain a lot? Because I have done psychology in relation to family, I have done the whole nature vs nurture argument. Hell, I spent an entire year writing about how the way you are brought up affects your adult life.

The part that I THOROUGHLY like though, is when you say "The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...", which is confusing in the first place unless you know the child first hand. But then you also go on to state that you are not an expert in child psychology. I think if you do not know the child first hand, it does not make you capable of commenting on the child'd mental state or what she thinks.

And, I am not saying that a 14 year old would not be affected..... I am not saying that at all.

What I AM saying though, is that it would affect the 7 year old for a longer amount of time.
Why? Because they would not have understood what was going on, they wouldn't understand why, they wouldn't understand who they are being given too.

The only reason it would not affect a 14 year old as badly is because at that point they have the capability of completely understanding what is going on. That doesn't mean they will be like "alright, fuck it, let's go" like you seem to think I meant. They will react, badly.

However, it will not affect them as further until their adult life as it would with a 7 year old child.

No matter how much I say "she will be upset"? What is wrong with you?

Mental stress and issues are not just someone "being upset". Mental stress can affect someone to the point of where they do not even leave a room. They completely stop any daily routine what so over. Hell, they can stop eating.

And I am sorry, I really am. You can not care how people deal with emotions all you like. You can sit in the corner doing everything with a cold expression like your having a colonoscopy for all I care. But having the supposed "best long term" interests for the child involves mental and emotional factors. I think based on the fact that you do not care about how people deal with emotions, and that a factor of this solution is based on the emotional and mental level, you are nowhere near qualified to provide an answer to this situation.

Or she can stay in the US without citizenship or papers then be deported when a police officer finds out she has none.

You know, because being deported with no idea where your other family is sooo much better. /sarcasm

emotion and mental health is all well and good, but that doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law. If she stays there, she WILL have issues later in life. Considering she needs to magically find a way to get every document, she would wish she was killed when that woman abducted her.

Legality and paperwork is tantamount to a life. She may be happy having a "family" but she wont be able to go to elementary school (needs birth certificate) because her paperwork were forgeries. Since Guatemala nullified her adoption, they have no legal standing to get a birth certificate.

Basically, she wont be employable in ANY job, not even Mcdonalds.

Sending her back to Guatemala is better than having her without an education, and on the street.

I will agree with your point of view.

I am only speaking from a psychologists or social workers point of view, because that is what all of my university study has been based on.

I am interested in hearing the points of view from say, a lawyer (to do with citizenship, etc) and possibly a department worker (not sure which department, I live in Australia so it'll be different for us).

The only reason I am responding like I am earlier is because people assume that they know what is mentally best for the child, while apparently completely disregarding the mentality aspect.

Sorry if I sounded rude or condescending.

dumbseizure:

Ultratwinkie:

dumbseizure:

This explains a lot. You haven't done child psychology.

Why does it explain a lot? Because I have done psychology in relation to family, I have done the whole nature vs nurture argument. Hell, I spent an entire year writing about how the way you are brought up affects your adult life.

The part that I THOROUGHLY like though, is when you say "The fact that the child may recognise these adoptive parents as her true parents is a lie...", which is confusing in the first place unless you know the child first hand. But then you also go on to state that you are not an expert in child psychology. I think if you do not know the child first hand, it does not make you capable of commenting on the child'd mental state or what she thinks.

And, I am not saying that a 14 year old would not be affected..... I am not saying that at all.

What I AM saying though, is that it would affect the 7 year old for a longer amount of time.
Why? Because they would not have understood what was going on, they wouldn't understand why, they wouldn't understand who they are being given too.

The only reason it would not affect a 14 year old as badly is because at that point they have the capability of completely understanding what is going on. That doesn't mean they will be like "alright, fuck it, let's go" like you seem to think I meant. They will react, badly.

However, it will not affect them as further until their adult life as it would with a 7 year old child.

No matter how much I say "she will be upset"? What is wrong with you?

Mental stress and issues are not just someone "being upset". Mental stress can affect someone to the point of where they do not even leave a room. They completely stop any daily routine what so over. Hell, they can stop eating.

And I am sorry, I really am. You can not care how people deal with emotions all you like. You can sit in the corner doing everything with a cold expression like your having a colonoscopy for all I care. But having the supposed "best long term" interests for the child involves mental and emotional factors. I think based on the fact that you do not care about how people deal with emotions, and that a factor of this solution is based on the emotional and mental level, you are nowhere near qualified to provide an answer to this situation.

Or she can stay in the US without citizenship or papers then be deported when a police officer finds out she has none.

You know, because being deported with no idea where your other family is sooo much better. /sarcasm

emotion and mental health is all well and good, but that doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law. If she stays there, she WILL have issues later in life. Considering she needs to magically find a way to get every document, she would wish she was killed when that woman abducted her.

Legality and paperwork is tantamount to a life. She may be happy having a "family" but she wont be able to go to elementary school (needs birth certificate) because her paperwork were forgeries. Since Guatemala nullified her adoption, they have no legal standing to get a birth certificate.

Basically, she wont be employable in ANY job, not even Mcdonalds.

Sending her back to Guatemala is better than having her without an education, and on the street.

I will agree with your point of view.

I am only speaking from a psychologists or social workers point of view, because that is what all of my university study has been based on.

I am interested in hearing the points of view from say, a lawyer (to do with citizenship, etc) and possibly a department worker (not sure which department, I live in Australia so it'll be different for us).

The only reason I am responding like I am earlier is because people assume that they know what is mentally best for the child, while apparently completely disregarding the mentality aspect.

Sorry if I sounded rude or condescending.

Basically for your questions:

1. Guatemala has town registries for births. Without knowing where she was born, they cant even ask for a certificate. Since they are, in Guatemala, considered illegal kidnappers they will be arrested if they ask for it.

2. In the US, you NEED your papers. Without something as basic as a certificate, you cant even enroll in elementary school. In fact you don't even exist in the eyes of the law. Since she doesn't have a social security number (which the forgery is likely stolen or fake), she will have a harder time enrolling in a college or higher level schools. Its how they identify you. If they catch her using a stolen social, she will likely be charged with identity theft, fraud, and some other charges. seeing she has no citizenship or papers, this could disqualify her from becoming a citizen or entering the US at all if she is deported.

3. To become a US citizen, you need:
- Birth Certificate
- Taxes
- your Social security number
- Your work, and how long you worked there. Including how much you earn.
- This is just a short list, but there is more.

4. Fourth, her lack of citizenship means any time she is questioned by a cop or pulled over, she will likely be arrested. She wont have a driver's license or registration. To get those you need (you guessed it) her social and birth certificate and a litany of other certificates that need the same social and certificate. Her story of being kidnapped from Guatemala would likely end in her deportation regardless of her family's objections.

This is just off the top of my head. I know this from research (for Guatemala's and US laws), and first hand experience with immigration, missing documents, etc.

Basically she cant:

Be educated.
Drive.
Own property (possibly, the laws are sketchy)
Work.
etc.

Basically she wont be able to do anything. That's basically your glimpse into American law that usually leads to a cascade of negative consequences.

CaptainMarvelous:

Dastardly:

Mortai Gravesend:
You somehow think that she grew to be 4 and never learned Spanish while living in Guatemala? Sure it'll be far from perfect, but to say she won't be able to communicate?

We have no idea what went on between 2006 and 2008. She had a family until she was two, and then she was adrift for 2 years, and then she was adopted in 2008. Even assuming she was in Guatemala the whole time, given what we know of language development, it's not a stretch to think she's more a native English speaker than anything.

Most language development takes place at home and among family. Familiar faces, familiar voices, consistent speech patterns and vocabulary. And then being in school ramps that up another notch, but that's not until 4 or 5, depending.

Now, I don't think the language problem needs to be a deal-breaker, or even a central fixture in the proceedings... but I don't think it can be as casually dismissed as you think.

If she was kidnapped when she was 2, adopted in 2008 and it's 2012 NOW and her given ages is 7, doesn't that mean she'd more likely be three when she's adopted than four? I'm getting lost in the calculations people are having here where they tweak the numbers so she spent more time in Guatemala like that justifies their view somehow? Or am I imagining that?

She was born October 1st, 2004. She left the country in December of 2008. Ergo she was 4. So no, no one is tweaking the numbers. You apparently just didn't bother to read the article thoroughly before making baseless accusations. Feel free to apologize any time.

Oh and btw, my bringing up the time was simply to point out that someone else was being unreasonable about their claim that her mother wouldn't understand her. Having left the country at the age of 4 and it being only 3 years later I don't see how the guy I first replied to decided that she knows no Spanish. Reading the article and what people are arguing would probably help you to make less mistakes.

Mortai Gravesend:

CaptainMarvelous:

Dastardly:

We have no idea what went on between 2006 and 2008. She had a family until she was two, and then she was adrift for 2 years, and then she was adopted in 2008. Even assuming she was in Guatemala the whole time, given what we know of language development, it's not a stretch to think she's more a native English speaker than anything.

Most language development takes place at home and among family. Familiar faces, familiar voices, consistent speech patterns and vocabulary. And then being in school ramps that up another notch, but that's not until 4 or 5, depending.

Now, I don't think the language problem needs to be a deal-breaker, or even a central fixture in the proceedings... but I don't think it can be as casually dismissed as you think.

If she was kidnapped when she was 2, adopted in 2008 and it's 2012 NOW and her given ages is 7, doesn't that mean she'd more likely be three when she's adopted than four? I'm getting lost in the calculations people are having here where they tweak the numbers so she spent more time in Guatemala like that justifies their view somehow? Or am I imagining that?

She was born October 1st, 2004. She left the country in December of 2008. Ergo she was 4. So no, no one is tweaking the numbers. You apparently just didn't bother to read the article thoroughly before making baseless accusations. Feel free to apologize any time.

Oh and btw, my bringing up the time was simply to point out that someone else was being unreasonable about their claim that her mother wouldn't understand her. Having left the country at the age of 4 and it being only 3 years later I don't see how the guy I first replied to decided that she knows no Spanish. Reading the article and what people are arguing would probably help you to make less mistakes.

See, I would've apologised if you hadn't said it in JUST that right tone of condescending, so I won't :D you may notice the question mark at the end and that I'm not following the calculations, it was less a baseless accusation and more a general confusion which has been cleared up by your vitriolic response. So thank you, I hope that satisfies your ego. Incidentally, tweaking the facts to fit your viewpoint isn't an attack on your character, it's rationalisation, it's how you make decisions.

Have a nice day

CaptainMarvelous:

Mortai Gravesend:

CaptainMarvelous:

If she was kidnapped when she was 2, adopted in 2008 and it's 2012 NOW and her given ages is 7, doesn't that mean she'd more likely be three when she's adopted than four? I'm getting lost in the calculations people are having here where they tweak the numbers so she spent more time in Guatemala like that justifies their view somehow? Or am I imagining that?

She was born October 1st, 2004. She left the country in December of 2008. Ergo she was 4. So no, no one is tweaking the numbers. You apparently just didn't bother to read the article thoroughly before making baseless accusations. Feel free to apologize any time.

Oh and btw, my bringing up the time was simply to point out that someone else was being unreasonable about their claim that her mother wouldn't understand her. Having left the country at the age of 4 and it being only 3 years later I don't see how the guy I first replied to decided that she knows no Spanish. Reading the article and what people are arguing would probably help you to make less mistakes.

See, I would've apologised if you hadn't said it in JUST that right tone of condescending, so I won't :D you may notice the question mark at the end and that I'm not following the calculations, it was less a baseless accusation and more a general confusion which has been cleared up by your vitriolic response. So thank you, I hope that satisfies your ego. Incidentally, tweaking the facts to fit your viewpoint isn't an attack on your character, it's rationalisation, it's how you make decisions.

Have a nice day

No, tweaking the facts to fit their viewpoint is not how people make decisions necessarily. It would be dishonest.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked